333 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

I'm OK with everyone making the choices that best suit them....but I think communities like this are inconsistent when it comes to the narrative on why and what guys sign for.

 

There was an easy way for him to reasonably make well more money in his career.  He's already made close to 25M so he can retire tomorrow, go to an island and drink margaritas for the rest of his life and it's all good.  Locking up 80M is cool and he can go to maybe his own island....but taking the QO and hitting the FA market next year would more reasonably put him closer 120M.

 

Now if 80M now is better than 120M total ok, but let's apply that (at least in consideration) everywhere (like, for example, the John Means discussion)

 

Why sign for 6/$100M after his good 2022 when he can accept a 1/$25M deal from somebody and then have a good 2023 and then get 5/$125M?  

 

I think for a guy with a nearly 5 ERA who's only pitched 157 innings over 2 years, that 5/$80M guaranteed now is far better than $18M plus whatever comes after.  I agree that the maximum earnings potential would've been higher had he gone year-to-year.  But then that is always true, guys would maximize their potential career earnings if they only ever signed 1-year deals, but then you risk a lot compared to having taken long-term guaranteed money if it all comes crashing down which happens to everyone eventually.

 

Seems like a smart deal for him to have taken to me.  And he does get a chance to increase his overall earnings if he has a strong next two years and opts out.

[dude]

Why sign for 6/$100M after his good 2022 when he can accept a 1/$25M deal from somebody and then have a good 2023 and then get 5/$125M? 

 

Again, I'm comfortable with whatever anyone wants to do, my only point is there's more than one way to consider a decision.  WHEN they sign the guarantee, everyone says "oh yeah, it's 80M", but it's not the MAKE THE MOST decision that everyone thinks everyone is glued too.

 

...and the answer to the question is there's basically a 2-year window where you want to be a FA to optimize your lifetime financial return.  Players/agents can do whatever they want and create their own priorities.

 

ERod is at the front end of that 2-year window, but he's coming off a missed season (Myo-2020) and an under-performing one (2021) and has an attached QO.  He's going to do what I'm suggesting unless someone buys out the risk number he's looking for....which is apparently around 80M.  After next season, he'd be at the back of that window.  Time isn't a FAs friend in these situations and you'll roll out years however you need to based on the market, but coming off a good season (more like his earlier career) without compensation (and we don't know what the next CBA looks like so another factor in there for maybe take the money now) he'd have more opportunity to increase his lifetime earning after one season. 

 

It's only about the optimized window.  It's generally the same for everyone.  It used to be a year or 2 later, but PED crackdown has moved it to the left.  There's a reason the owners proposal for FA is at 29.5 years, that's the very back-end of the 2-year window.  That number isn't random. 

[BSLChrisStoner]

His peripherals were good in '21. What do you think he would need to do in '22 to jump his total contract from $80M to $120M?

 

And ftr, if you are suggesting he should have taken the QO...  then it would be the QO for '22, and whatever subsequent contract and years vs. $80M for '22, '23, '24, '25, '26.   

If you are saying the total dollars of the QO for '22 + a 5 year after '22 would equal $120M+...  then you'd have to compare that to $80M now, and whatever deal he gets for '27. 

[dude]

His peripherals were good in '21. What do you think he would need to do in '22 to jump his total contract from $80M to $120M?

 

And ftr, if you are suggesting he should have taken the QO...  then it would be the QO for '22, and whatever subsequent contract and years vs. $80M for '22, '23, '24, '25, '26.   

If you are saying the total dollars of the QO for '22 + a 5 year after '22 would equal $120M+...  then you'd have to compare that to $80M now, and whatever deal he gets for '27. 

 

1) 180+ innings, ERA under 4.00.....6/100

 

2) Yes, I'm guessing the timing of this contract actually suggests he was headed to accept the QO and he and his agent were asked for a number to sign now.  He has some challenges in this offseason and another season would solidify his past performance and overcome any detraction today.  The Tigers just look like they were willing to step out and meet that risk number. I'm OK with the Tigers doing it and him accepting it, but the Tigers backloaded it after the opt-out and that gives us some perspective on shaping a contract like this.

 

3) Absolutely, but look at guys that are 33-34 (not Scherzer and Verlander) on the market....they are not going to kill it in FA....5 years from now he's more likely done than signing a similar AAV.  If you had to guess today, maybe something like 2/20...So he's maybe 100M over the next 7 years (current) and if he takes the one year and looks next year he could be something like 6/100 so more like 120 over those 7 years.

 

He could also throw up a big year and get something more than 6/100...or he could get hurt and get nothing.  But his risks for big paydays are more after 2 and a lot more after 5....so this is his payday....and he's got 80M (plus a previous 25M) so it's all good, just not the most he could have potentially earned.

[Mackus]

1) 180+ innings, ERA under 4.00.....6/100

 

2) Yes, I'm guessing the timing of this contract actually suggests he was headed to accept the QO and he and his agent were asked for a number to sign now.  He has some challenges in this offseason and another season would solidify his past performance and overcome any detraction today.  The Tigers just look like they were willing to step out and meet that risk number. I'm OK with the Tigers doing it and him accepting it, but the Tigers backloaded it after the opt-out and that gives us some perspective on shaping a contract like this.

 

3) Absolutely, but look at guys that are 33-34 (not Scherzer and Verlander) on the market....they are not going to kill it in FA....5 years from now he's more likely done than signing a similar AAV.  If you had to guess today, maybe something like 2/20...So he's maybe 100M over the next 7 years (current) and if he takes the one year and looks next year he could be something like 6/100 so more like 120 over those 7 years.

 

He could also throw up a big year and get something more than 6/100...or he could get hurt and get nothing.  But his risks for big paydays are less after 2 and a lot less after 5....so this is his payday....and he's got 80M (plus a previous 25M) so it's all good, just not the most he could have potentially earned.

 

Signing nothing but 1-year contracts is the only way to absolutely maximize the money you can potentially earn.  If you do anything other than that, at some point, to some degree, you are taking the guarantee of enough total dollars to outweigh the risk versus reward of trying to maximize your earnings potential.

 

So yes, he could end up having earned more if he signed a 1-year deal and then went back to free agency.  That's true for all players al the time.  He also could've earned less by signing a 1-year deal, if he suffers another injury or has a bad year.  That's true for all players as well and is why players want long-term guarantees.  I don't think that there is anything peculiar or odd about him taking this deal.  It certainly doesn't seem the type of deal to me that you look at and say "wow I guess he really wanted the guaranteed money".  The odds of him being worth more than 4/$62M (delta between what he got and the qualifying offer he could've accepted) next offseason may be greater than 50/50, but I would estimate that the expected value when considering and weighing all possible outcomes is less than $62M.   And he's still got upper end protection via the opt-out.  If he has 2 good years or even just one average year followed by a great year in 2023,  then he still has the opportunity to increase the overall earnings and hit the market again at a relevant age.

[dude]

Signing nothing but 1-year contracts is the only way to absolutely maximize the money you can potentially earn.  If you do anything other than that, at some point, to some degree, you are taking the guarantee of enough total dollars to outweigh the risk versus reward of trying to maximize your earnings potential.

 

I don't agree with this.  At a career level looking at maximum earnings and REAL risks, you basically have 3 elements and it's the same for everyone.  Everyone's career, opportunities and priorities are a little different, but the model doesn't really change if your goal is to balance risks and total payout.

 

Again, players can do whatever they want. 

 

I'm considering a pretty reasonable outcome based on his past.  His upside is probably something like Patrick Corbin.  He mitigated is risk and took a number he was comfortable balancing against the potential upside.  ....but his career downside right now is just over 100M.    He can buy an island regardless.

[Mackus]

I don't agree with this.  

 

There is really nothing to disagree with.  It's undeniably true.  To absolutely maximize your earnings potential you'd have to sign a sequence of 1-year deals.  You're taking on a wild level of risk that you end up earning less than maximum but you're maximizing the total dollars you could possibly earn.  Everything other than that is sacrificing some earnings potential in order to gain some security. 

 

Where you draw the line on potential versus security and end up finding a balance you like is certainly different for everybody.  But most guys want a lot of security, which is why we often see big long-term deals for the top guys, often before even reaching free agency.  The new bonus is they also build in some upward potential into those contracts in the form of opt-outs.  None of the risk of losing out on future dollars by going year-to-year or shorter term, but much (not all) of the reward in the ability to improve their earnings down the road if situations allow.

[Mackus]

Javier Baez for 6/$140M.  Opt included, details not yet fully reported.

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: Tigers rookie Spencer Torkelson hits first career MLB home run at Comerica Park

https://www.cbssport...-comerica-park/

[Chris B]

Oh man. With the Tigers up 1-0 on the Yankees with 2 outs and men on 2nd and 3rd, Aaron Boone intentionally walks Miguel Cabrera who is sitting on #2,999.

 

A chorus of boos followed, even with the Tigers extending their lead to 3-0.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Buck should have walked Jeter.

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: Miguel Cabrera chasing 3,000 hits: Tigers star one knock short, next chance in Saturday doubleheader

https://www.cbssport...y-doubleheader/

[Mike in STL]

Miggy got 3,000. Going to be the last one for maybe a decade the only active players with the age to realistically get there next are Machado and Trout, both only in the 1400s. And since hits don’t matter anymore, only homers, who knows if they do it.

3,000 hits might go the way of 300 pitcher wins. Might never be seen again.

Miggy now the 7th player with 500 homers and 3000 hits.

[BaltBird 24]

Altuve has a small chance to be the next member.

[Mike in STL]

Altuve has a small chance to be the next member.

Yeah, he and Freeman would have to have no regression or long term injuries I think.

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: Struggling Tigers to call up top center field prospect Riley Greene

https://www.cbssport...t-riley-greene/

[Mackus]

Holy crap.  The Tigers have a 587 OPS.  As a team!

 

627 ('13 Marlins) is the lowest season-long team offensive performance in the past 40 years.

 

The Padres are also currently below that at 605.  The league as a whole is still low for the year (703) but ticking back up towards amore normal performance after the super inept start to the season.

[makoman]

Holy crap.  The Tigers have a 587 OPS.  As a team!

 

627 ('13 Marlins) is the lowest season-long team offensive performance in the past 40 years.

 

The Padres are also currently below that at 605.  The league as a whole is still low for the year (703) but ticking back up towards amore normal performance after the super inept start to the season.

The Tigers only have 4 guys with 100 PAs and over 70 OPS+. 

 

You meant the A's at 605. They have 9 such guys but only 2 over 100 OPS+.

 

O's have 8, soon to be 9 when Adley gets a few PAs. They are helped by having 4 guys over 116. I read somewhere they have a top 10 offense so far in June.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Javy Baez yikes. Lot of Os fans wouldve been happy signing him this past offseason.

[BSLChrisStoner]

MLBTR: Avila: Tigers Have Not Had Recent Contact With Eduardo Rodriguez

https://www.mlbtrade...-rodriguez.html

 

I mentioned Rodriguez numerous times in the offseason as someone I thought the O's should target...  an example of you don't know, what you don't know...  

Whatever he has going on, for him not to be in-contact with the team for a month is just crazy.